Breastfeeding experiences among mothers living with food insecurity in high resource, Western countries: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this review are to identify, appraise, and synthesize the qualitative evidence on the breastfeeding experiences of mothers living with food insecurity in high-resource, Western countries. INTRODUCTION: Breastfeeding and food insecurity are inter-related health issues. Globally, breastfeeding augments food security at individual, household, and community levels, but a growing body of evidence from high-resourced countries also suggests that a mother's breastfeeding practice may be negatively impacted by the additional experience of food insecurity. This protocol outlines a systematic approach to understanding the experiences of breastfeeding from the perspective of mothers living with food insecurity. Findings will provide much-needed evidence toward guiding policies and practices that support mothers to breastfeed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider studies that explore the breastfeeding experiences of mothers aged 18 years and older who self-identify, or are classified using a screening tool, as food insecure. Papers that will be included in this review will consider all qualitative methodologies and will be limited to studies from countries identified as being within the United Nations classification of Western European and Other States Group (WEOG). METHODS: The authors will conduct a three-step search process across both published and gray literature to identify relevant studies for inclusion. A preliminary search using the PubMed database was undertaken in January 2020. Studies published in English from 1981 to 2020 will be included. The recommended JBI methodology for qualitative systematic review for study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be followed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020183652.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".